pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22679 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

How Supply Chain Dependencies Complicate Bias Measurement and Accountability Attribution in AI Hiring Applications

Gauri Sharma , Maryam Molamohammadi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI hiringalgorithmic biassupply chainaccountabilityinformation asymmetryregulatory compliance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supply chain dependencies in AI hiring systems make integrated bias measurement impossible and accountability attribution unclear.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that AI hiring tools are assembled from separate pieces supplied by data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and the organizations that deploy them. Bias often arises only when these pieces interact, yet each vendor keeps its configuration private, so no one can test the full system. Deploying organizations face legal duties under rules like the EU AI Act but cannot see or audit the vendor components they rely on. Vendors in turn face no requirement to disclose how their parts are built or combined. The result is that every party can believe it has done its part while the overall system still discriminates.

Core claim

Fragmented responsibilities across AI hiring supply chains create two linked problems: bias emerges from component interactions that proprietary configurations block from integrated evaluation, and information asymmetries leave deploying organizations legally responsible without technical visibility while vendors control implementations without disclosure obligations.

What carries the argument

Dependency chains that fragment responsibility across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations

If this is right

  • Individual components can appear unbiased while their combination produces discriminatory outcomes.
  • Deploying organizations cannot perform the system-level bias audits required by emerging regulations.
  • Every stakeholder can view itself as compliant while the integrated system remains biased.
  • Governance needs coordinated measures such as system-level audits, vendor guidelines, and documentation across the chain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same supply-chain opacity likely blocks bias evaluation in other domains that use multi-vendor AI pipelines.
  • Regulators may need contract or statutory rules that give deployers audit rights over vendor components.
  • Controlled experiments pairing specific resume parsers with ranking models could reveal measurable interaction bias on public hiring datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that supply-chain interactions and information asymmetries are the dominant barriers, rather than problems that existing component-level testing or voluntary disclosures could already solve.

What would settle it

A documented case in which a full AI hiring pipeline is audited end-to-end, bias is detected and traced to specific interactions, and accountability is assigned despite proprietary vendor components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22679 by Gauri Sharma, Maryam Molamohammadi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: AI-enabled use cases in hiring workflow and examples of bias sources, derived from reviewed literature and view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Beyond data and model bias, information asymmetries, vendor-dependent supply chains, legal-technical view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that supply chain dependencies in AI hiring applications fragment responsibilities across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This fragmentation creates two critical problems: bias that emerges from interactions between components (such as a resume parser and ranking algorithm) rather than isolated elements, which proprietary configurations prevent from being evaluated in an integrated manner; and information asymmetries where deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Drawing on literature review, regulatory analysis of frameworks including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act, plus illustrative scenarios and analysis of implementation ambiguities, the paper argues that each stakeholder may believe they are compliant yet the integrated system produces biased outcomes. It proposes multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains.

Significance. If the analysis holds, the work is significant in identifying structural governance challenges for bias measurement and accountability in distributed AI development environments, especially for high-stakes applications like hiring. It usefully connects technical, organizational, and regulatory domains and could inform coordinated policy responses, building on existing literature and regulatory texts to highlight the limits of component-level approaches.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and analysis of bias emergence from component interactions] The central claim that bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation, rests on illustrative examples (e.g., resume parser contributing to discrimination when integrated with ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds) without empirical evidence, case studies, or systematic review demonstrating that such interaction effects produce bias undetectable by component-level fairness metrics. This assumption is load-bearing for the argument that integrated evaluation is strictly necessary.
  2. [Analysis of implementation ambiguities and information asymmetries] The assertion that information asymmetries render existing transparency mechanisms (such as model cards, API audit access, or NYC LL 144 disclosure rules) systematically insufficient relies on regulatory analysis but provides no systematic review or evidence showing that voluntary or regulated disclosures fail in practice to enable accountability attribution. Without this, the claim that these asymmetries are the dominant practical barrier remains an assertion rather than a substantiated finding.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit definitions of core terms such as 'supply chain dependencies' and 'integrated evaluation' in an early section to improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the supply-chain framing.
  2. Consider expanding the literature review to include more empirical studies on bias in AI hiring tools and any documented cases of supply-chain-related accountability failures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the scope and evidentiary basis of our analysis. We respond to each major comment below and indicate revisions to strengthen the manuscript while preserving its conceptual focus.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and analysis of bias emergence from component interactions] The central claim that bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation, rests on illustrative examples (e.g., resume parser contributing to discrimination when integrated with ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds) without empirical evidence, case studies, or systematic review demonstrating that such interaction effects produce bias undetectable by component-level fairness metrics. This assumption is load-bearing for the argument that integrated evaluation is strictly necessary.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript relies on illustrative scenarios rather than new empirical data, case studies, or a systematic review of interaction effects. As a conceptual paper drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, our goal is to identify structural challenges in supply chain dependencies that make integrated evaluation difficult, using the resume parser example to demonstrate a plausible mechanism based on documented component-level biases in the existing literature. We do not claim to prove that such interactions always produce undetectable bias. In revision, we will add an explicit subsection clarifying the paper's methodological approach as scenario-based analysis to highlight potential governance gaps, and we will incorporate additional citations to studies on emergent properties in composite AI systems. This addresses the load-bearing nature of the claim by framing it as a structural argument rather than an empirically demonstrated one. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Analysis of implementation ambiguities and information asymmetries] The assertion that information asymmetries render existing transparency mechanisms (such as model cards, API audit access, or NYC LL 144 disclosure rules) systematically insufficient relies on regulatory analysis but provides no systematic review or evidence showing that voluntary or regulated disclosures fail in practice to enable accountability attribution. Without this, the claim that these asymmetries are the dominant practical barrier remains an assertion rather than a substantiated finding.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this evidentiary point. Our analysis examines the texts of the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act to identify ambiguities in how they address supply chain dependencies and disclosure requirements, arguing that these create information asymmetries. We do not perform a systematic empirical review of disclosure failures in practice, as such evidence would require proprietary data not publicly available. The argument is therefore based on the logical implications of the regulatory language and known asymmetries in AI development. In the revised manuscript, we will add a limitations section that explicitly acknowledges the lack of empirical validation of disclosure effectiveness and recommends future empirical studies on this topic. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; argument constructed from external regulatory texts and literature

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or self-referential definitions that reduce claims to inputs defined within the work itself. Its central claims about supply-chain fragmentation and information asymmetries are advanced through literature review, regulatory analysis (EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, Colorado AI Act), and illustrative examples rather than any internal construction or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step matches the enumerated circularity patterns; the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative policy paper with no quantitative models. No free parameters, new entities, or formal axioms are introduced beyond standard domain assumptions about how AI systems are procured and regulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across multiple parties
    Stated as background in the abstract and used to frame the two problems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1282 out tokens · 60761 ms · 2026-05-08T09:31:53.127373+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains

    Jennifer Cobbe, Michael Veale, and Jatinder Singh. Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’23, page 1186–1197, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  2. [2]

    ai supply chain

    David Gray Widder and Dawn Nafus. Dislocated accountabilities in the “ai supply chain”: Modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility.Big Data & Society, 10(1):20539517231177620, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    artificial intelligence as a service

    Kornel Lewicki, Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Jennifer Cobbe, and Jatinder Singh. Out of context: Investigating the bias and fairness concerns of “artificial intelligence as a service”. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  4. [4]

    Dennis, David Graus, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Asia J

    Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J. Dennis, David Graus, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Asia J. Biega. Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 16(1), January 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: evaluating claims and practices

    Manish Raghavan, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, and Karen Levy. Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: evaluating claims and practices. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’20, page 469–481, New York, NY , USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery

    2020

  6. [6]

    Comparing apples to oranges: A taxonomy for navigating the global landscape of ai regulation

    Sacha Alanoca, Shira Gur-Arieh, Tom Zick, and Kevin Klyman. Comparing apples to oranges: A taxonomy for navigating the global landscape of ai regulation. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, page 914–937, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

    2025

  7. [7]

    Mapping global ai governance: a nascent regime in a fragmented landscape.AI and Ethics, 2, 05 2022

    Lewin Schmitt. Mapping global ai governance: a nascent regime in a fragmented landscape.AI and Ethics, 2, 05 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Algorithm-facilitated discrimination: a socio-legal study of the use by employers of artificial intelligence hiring systems.Journal of Law and Society, 52(2):269–291, 2025

    NATALIE SHEARD. Algorithm-facilitated discrimination: a socio-legal study of the use by employers of artificial intelligence hiring systems.Journal of Law and Society, 52(2):269–291, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Allocating accountability in AI supply chains

    Ian Brown. Allocating accountability in AI supply chains. Technical report, Ada Lovelace Institute, June 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Kogan Page, London, UK, 2nd edition, 2022

    Ben Eubanks.Artificial Intelligence for HR: Use AI to Support and Develop a Successful Workforce. Kogan Page, London, UK, 2nd edition, 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10:Article 567, 2023

    Zhisheng Chen. Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10:Article 567, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Ethics of ai-enabled recruiting and selection: A review and research agenda.Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4):977–1007, 2022

    Anna Lena Hunkenschroer and Christoph Luetge. Ethics of ai-enabled recruiting and selection: A review and research agenda.Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4):977–1007, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Cassidy Pyle, Kat Roemmich, and Nazanin Andalibi. U.s. job-seekers’ organizational justice perceptions of emotion ai-enabled interviews.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 8(CSCW2), November 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    The paradox of automation as anti-bias intervention.Cardozo L

    Ifeoma Ajunwa. The paradox of automation as anti-bias intervention.Cardozo L. Rev., 41:1671, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and hr professional’s perspectives on ai use in hiring

    Lan Li, Tina Lassiter, Joohee Oh, and Min Kyung Lee. Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and hr professional’s perspectives on ai use in hiring. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’21, page 166–176, New York, NY , USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. 13 APREPRINT

    2021

  16. [16]

    Lena Armstrong, Jayne Everson, and Amy J. Ko. Navigating a black box: Students’ experiences and perceptions of automated hiring. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1, ICER ’23, page 148–158, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  17. [17]

    finding the magic sauce

    Mitra Lashkari and Jinghui Cheng. “finding the magic sauce”: Exploring perspectives of recruiters and job seekers on recruitment bias and automated tools. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  18. [18]

    Annex iii: High-risk ai systems referred to in article 6(2)

    European Union. Annex iii: High-risk ai systems referred to in article 6(2). EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-05

    2024

  19. [19]

    Annex III: High-risk AI systems referred to in article 6(2)

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Annex III: High-risk AI systems referred to in article 6(2). regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the european parliament and of the council on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_20240168...

    2024

  20. [20]

    Thompson

    Dennis F. Thompson. Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands.American Political Science Review, 74(4):905–916, 1980

    1980

  21. [21]

    Accountability in a computerized society.Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1):25–42, March 1996

    Helen Nissenbaum. Accountability in a computerized society.Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1):25–42, March 1996

    1996

  22. [22]

    Responsible ai and third-party risk management: what you need to know

    PwC. Responsible ai and third-party risk management: what you need to know. Industry report, Pricewaterhouse- Coopers, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Local law 144: Automated employment decision tools

    New York City Council. Local law 144: Automated employment decision tools. New York City Administrative Code, 2021. Effective July 5, 2023

    2021

  24. [24]

    Nathan Matias

    Lucas Wright, Roxana Mika Muenster, Briana Vecchione, Tianyao Qu, Pika (Senhuang) Cai, Alan Smith, Comm 2450 Student Investigators, Jacob Metcalf, and J. Nathan Matias. Null compliance: Nyc local law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 1...

    2024

  25. [25]

    White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. Closing the ai accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’20, pag...

    2020

  26. [26]

    Ai auditing: The broken bus on the road to ai accountability, 2024

    Abeba Birhane, Ryan Steed, Victor Ojewale, Briana Vecchione, and Inioluwa Deborah Raji. Ai auditing: The broken bus on the road to ai accountability, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works.AI & Society, 39(4):1871–1882, August 2024

    Claudio Novelli, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works.AI & Society, 39(4):1871–1882, August 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Francis, Mitja D

    Eric Grunenberg, Heinrich Peters, Matt J. Francis, Mitja D. Back, and Sandra C. Matz. Machine learning in recruiting: predicting personality from cvs and short text responses.Frontiers in Social Psychology, V olume 1 - 2023, 2024

    2023

  29. [29]

    Game based assessments of cognitive ability in recruitment: Validity, fairness and test-taking experience.Frontiers in Psychology, 13:942662, 2023

    Franziska Leutner, Sonia-Cristina Codreanu, Suzanne Brink, and Theodoros Bitsakis. Game based assessments of cognitive ability in recruitment: Validity, fairness and test-taking experience.Frontiers in Psychology, 13:942662, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Richard N Landers, Michael B Armstrong, Andrew B Collmus, Salih Mujcic, and Jason Blaik. Theory-driven game-based assessment of general cognitive ability: Design theory, measurement, prediction of performance, and test fairness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(10):1655, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    Game-related assessments for personnel selection: A systematic review.Frontiers in Psychology, 13:952002, 2022

    Pedro J Ramos-Villagrasa, Elena Fernandez-del Rio, and Angel Castro. Game-related assessments for personnel selection: A systematic review.Frontiers in Psychology, 13:952002, 2022

    2022

  32. [32]

    glass box

    Monideepa Tarafdar, Irina Rets, Lindsey Zuloaga, and Nathan Mondragon. How hirevue created “glass box” transparency for its ai application.MIS Quarterly Executive, 24(1):47–65, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Psychometric properties of automated video interview competency assessments.Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(6):921, 2024

    Josh Liff, Nathan Mondragon, Cari Gardner, Christopher J Hartwell, and Adam Bradshaw. Psychometric properties of automated video interview competency assessments.Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(6):921, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    Booth, Louis Hickman, Shree Krishna Subburaj, Louis Tay, Sang Eun Woo, and Sidney K

    Brandon M. Booth, Louis Hickman, Shree Krishna Subburaj, Louis Tay, Sang Eun Woo, and Sidney K. D’Mello. Bias and fairness in multimodal machine learning: A case study of automated video interviews. InProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ICMI ’21, page 268–277, New York, NY , USA,

    2021

  35. [35]

    14 APREPRINT

    Association for Computing Machinery. 14 APREPRINT

  36. [36]

    eradication of difference

    Eleanor Drage and Kerry Mackereth. Does ai debias recruitment? race, gender, and ai’s “eradication of difference”. Philosophy & technology, 35(4):89, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Changmao Li, Elaine Fisher, Rebecca Thomas, Steve Pittard, Vicki Hertzberg, and Jinho D. Choi. Competence- level prediction and resume & job description matching using context-aware transformer models. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNL...

    2020

  38. [38]

    A method for resume information extraction using bert-bilstm- crf

    XiaoWei Li, Hui Shu, Yi Zhai, and ZhiQiang Lin. A method for resume information extraction using bert-bilstm- crf. In2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), pages 1437–1442, 2021

    2021

  39. [39]

    End-to-end resume parsing and finding candidates for a job description using bert, 2019

    Vedant Bhatia, Prateek Rawat, Ajit Kumar, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. End-to-end resume parsing and finding candidates for a job description using bert, 2019

    2019

  40. [40]

    consultantbert: Fine-tuned siamese sentence-bert for matching jobs and job seekers, 2021

    Dor Lavi, V olodymyr Medentsiy, and David Graus. consultantbert: Fine-tuned siamese sentence-bert for matching jobs and job seekers, 2021

    2021

  41. [41]

    Learning to match jobs with resumes from sparse interaction data using multi-view co-teaching network

    Shuqing Bian, Xu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Yupeng Hou, Yang Song, Tao Zhang, and Ji-Rong Wen. Learning to match jobs with resumes from sparse interaction data using multi-view co-teaching network. 2020

    2020

  42. [42]

    An enhanced neural network approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment.ACM Trans

    Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Tong Xu, Chen Zhu, Chao Ma, Enhong Chen, and Hui Xiong. An enhanced neural network approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 38(2), February 2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    Applying bert-based nlp for automated resume screening and candidate ranking

    Asmita Deshmukh and Anjali Raut. Applying bert-based nlp for automated resume screening and candidate ranking. volume 12, pages 591–603. Springer, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    A hybrid resume parser and matcher using regex and ner

    Gurushantha Murthy G R, Shinu Abhi, and Rashmi Agarwal. A hybrid resume parser and matcher using regex and ner. In2023 International Conference on Advances in Computation, Communication and Information Technology (ICAICCIT), pages 24–29, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Generating synthetic resume data with large language models for enhanced job description classification.Future Internet, 15(11):363, 2023

    Panagiotis Skondras, Panagiotis Zervas, and Giannis Tzimas. Generating synthetic resume data with large language models for enhanced job description classification.Future Internet, 15(11):363, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    Fairness feedback loops: Training on synthetic data amplifies bias

    Sierra Wyllie, Ilia Shumailov, and Nicolas Papernot. Fairness feedback loops: Training on synthetic data amplifies bias. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 2113–2147, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  47. [47]

    Automated video interview personality assessments: Reliability, validity, and generalizability investigations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8):1323–1351, 2022

    Louis Hickman, Nigel Bosch, Vincent Ng, Rachel Saef, Louis Tay, and Sang Eun Woo. Automated video interview personality assessments: Reliability, validity, and generalizability investigations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8):1323–1351, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, and Prasanna Tambe

    Johann D. Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, and Prasanna Tambe. Auditing the use of language models to guide hiring decisions, 2024

    2024

  49. [49]

    The silicon ceiling: Auditing gpt’s race and gender biases in hiring

    Lena Armstrong, Abbey Liu, Stephen MacNeil, and Danaë Metaxa. The silicon ceiling: Auditing gpt’s race and gender biases in hiring. InProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO ’24, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  50. [50]

    AAAI Press, 2024

    Kyra Wilson and Aylin Caliskan.Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval, page 1578–1590. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation.PNAS Nexus, 4(3):pgaf089, March 2025

    Jiafu An, Difang Huang, Chen Lin, and Mingzhu Tai. Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation.PNAS Nexus, 4(3):pgaf089, March 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    No thoughts just ai: Biased llm hiring recommendations alter human decision making and limit human autonomy, 2025

    Kyra Wilson, Mattea Sim, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, and Aylin Caliskan. No thoughts just ai: Biased llm hiring recommendations alter human decision making and limit human autonomy, 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    Systemic discrimination among large u.s

    Patrick Kline, Evan K Rose, and Christopher R Walters. Systemic discrimination among large u.s. employers*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(4):1963–2036, 06 2022

    1963

  54. [54]

    Identifying and improving disability bias in gpt-based resume screening

    Kate Glazko, Yusuf Mohammed, Ben Kosa, Venkatesh Potluri, and Jennifer Mankoff. Identifying and improving disability bias in gpt-based resume screening. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 687–700, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  55. [55]

    Tackling algorithmic disability dis- crimination in the hiring process: An ethical, legal and technical analysis

    Maarten Buyl, Christina Cociancig, Cristina Frattone, and Nele Roekens. Tackling algorithmic disability dis- crimination in the hiring process: An ethical, legal and technical analysis. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’22, page 1071–1082, New York, NY , USA,

    2022

  56. [56]

    15 APREPRINT

    Association for Computing Machinery. 15 APREPRINT

  57. [57]

    Disability, fairness, and algorithmic bias in ai recruitment.Ethics and Inf

    Nicholas Tilmes. Disability, fairness, and algorithmic bias in ai recruitment.Ethics and Inf. Technol., 24(2), June 2022

    2022

  58. [58]

    Elisabeth K. Kelan. Algorithmic inclusion: Shaping the predictive algorithms of artificial intelligence in hiring. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(3):694–707, 2024

    2024

  59. [59]

    Emotion ai in job interviews: Injustice, emotional labor, identity, and privacy

    Alexis Shore Ingber and Nazanin Andalibi. Emotion ai in job interviews: Injustice, emotional labor, identity, and privacy. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, page 1–17, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

    2025

  60. [60]

    Collaboration among recruiters and artificial intelligence: removing human prejudices in employment.Cognition, Technology & Work, 25(1):135–149, 2023

    Zhisheng Chen. Collaboration among recruiters and artificial intelligence: removing human prejudices in employment.Cognition, Technology & Work, 25(1):135–149, 2023

    2023

  61. [61]

    Reducing ai bias in recruitment and selection: an integrative grounded approach.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pages 1–36, 2025

    Melika Soleimani, Ali Intezari, James Arrowsmith, David J Pauleen, and Nazim Taskin. Reducing ai bias in recruitment and selection: an integrative grounded approach.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pages 1–36, 2025

    2025

  62. [62]

    Bias and ethics of ai systems applied in auditing - a systematic review.Scientific African, 25:e02281, 2024

    Wilberforce Murikah, Jeff Kimanga Nthenge, and Faith Mueni Musyoka. Bias and ethics of ai systems applied in auditing - a systematic review.Scientific African, 25:e02281, 2024

    2024

  63. [63]

    Navigating automated hiring: Perceptions, strategy use, and outcomes among young job seekers.Proc

    Lena Armstrong and Danaé Metaxa. Navigating automated hiring: Perceptions, strategy use, and outcomes among young job seekers.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 9(2), May 2025

    2025

  64. [64]

    Preferring the devil you know: Potential applicant reactions to artificial intelligence evaluation of interviews.Human Resource Management Journal, 32(2):364–383, 2022

    Agata Mirowska and Laura Mesnet. Preferring the devil you know: Potential applicant reactions to artificial intelligence evaluation of interviews.Human Resource Management Journal, 32(2):364–383, 2022

    2022

  65. [65]

    The use of artificial intelligence (ai) in the hiring process: Job applicants’ perceptions of procedural justice.Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19:100713, 2025

    Md Sajjad Hosain, Mohammad Bin Amin, Gouranga Chandra Debnath, and Md Atikur Rahaman. The use of artificial intelligence (ai) in the hiring process: Job applicants’ perceptions of procedural justice.Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19:100713, 2025

    2025

  66. [66]

    Towards accountability for machine learning datasets: Practices from software engineering and infrastructure

    Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Remi Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell. Towards accountability for machine learning datasets: Practices from software engineering and infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, page 560–575, New Y...

    2021

  67. [67]

    Department of Justice and Office of Personnel Management and U.S

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Department of Justice and Office of Personnel Management and U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of the Treasury. Questions and answers to clarify and provide a common interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, March 1979. Federal Register, V ol. 44, No. 43, Friday, ...

    1979

  68. [68]

    Ai and discriminative decisions in recruitment: Challenging the core assumptions.Big Data & Society, 11(1):20539517241235872, 2024

    Päivi Seppälä and Magdalena Małecka. Ai and discriminative decisions in recruitment: Challenging the core assumptions.Big Data & Society, 11(1):20539517241235872, 2024

    2024

  69. [69]

    Building and auditing fair algorithms: A case study in candidate screening

    Christo Wilson, Avijit Ghosh, Shan Jiang, Alan Mislove, Lewis Baker, Janelle Szary, Kelly Trindel, and Frida Polli. Building and auditing fair algorithms: A case study in candidate screening. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, page 666–677, New York, NY , USA,

    2021

  70. [70]

    Association for Computing Machinery

  71. [71]

    Third-party ai risk: A holistic approach to vendor assessment, February 2024

    Marco Barone. Third-party ai risk: A holistic approach to vendor assessment, February 2024

    2024

  72. [72]

    Avi Gesser, Matt Kelly, Johanna Skrzypczyk, Tigist Kassahun, Jarrett Lewis, and Joshua A. Goland. Good ai vendor risk management is hard, but doable. Debevoise Data Blog, sep 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-12

    2024

  73. [73]

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    United States Congress. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public Law 88-352, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,

    1964

  74. [74]

    As amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

    1991

  75. [75]

    Americans with disabilities act of 1990

    United States Congress. Americans with disabilities act of 1990. S. 933, 101st Cong., Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., July 1990. Introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on May 9, 1989; passed Senate Sept. 7, 1989; signed into law July 26, 1990

    1990

  76. [76]

    Age discrimination in employment act of 1967

    United States Congress. Age discrimination in employment act of 1967. Public Law 90-202, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., 1967. As amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991

    1967

  77. [77]

    PART 60-3—Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Pro- cedures (1978)

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. PART 60-3—Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Pro- cedures (1978). 41 CFR Part 60-3, August 1978. Authority: Secs. 201, 202, 203, 203(a), 205, 206(a), 301, 303(b), and 403(b) of E.O. 11246; as amended by sec. 715 of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-14). Source: 43 FR 38295, 38314

    1978

  78. [78]

    An auditing imperative for automated hiring.Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(1), 2021

    Ifeoma Ajunwa. An auditing imperative for automated hiring.Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(1), 2021. 16 APREPRINT

    2021

  79. [79]

    Article 10: Data and data governance

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Article 10: Data and data governance. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),

    2024

  80. [80]

    Official Journal of the European Union

Showing first 80 references.